mcp-seo-audit

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'costs 1 API call each' for URL inspection, which is valuable behavioral context about resource usage. However, it doesn't disclose other critical traits like whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the comprehensive audit entails beyond listed checks.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Well-structured with purpose statement followed by parameter details. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information. Could be slightly more front-loaded with key constraints, but efficiently conveys necessary information without waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema exists, the description does well by thoroughly explaining parameters and audit scope. It covers the main functionality adequately, though could benefit from more behavioral context given no annotations. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need description.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides excellent parameter semantics: explains 'site_url' requires exact GSC property URL with an example, clarifies 'sitemap_url' is optional with auto-detection behavior, and specifies 'max_inspect' default value and API cost implication. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('run', 'checks', 'inspects', 'identifies', 'reports') and resources ('site audit', 'sitemap health', 'URLs', 'coverage problems', 'findings'). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'analyze_page_seo' or 'crawl_site_seo' by emphasizing comprehensive auditing, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'audit_live_site' which might be similar.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for comprehensive site auditing, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'audit_live_site' or 'crawl_site_seo'. The parameter descriptions hint at context (e.g., 'auto-detects from GSC'), but no when-not scenarios or clear alternatives are stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.